RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff and thingsAt the end of the day, nothing I suggest is going to be perfect. It also appears you and I hold very different views regarding the strength of an immediate action counterspell. That's all fine though. I am just unsure of what I can say further at this point to convince you of my point of view.
Actually, I think we agree on its power. I think we disagree on how big of an issue that power is.
I certainly agree that a one BBEG fight is rough to impossible to pull off for most. But even on SoD spells, few things are as absolute and frustrating (not to mention boring) as getting counterspelled at every turn.
The party's martials might disagree with you there; when the caster ends the single-BBEG fight with a SoD, they don't get to play. When the arcanist goes all-counter, the martials get to be involved in a decidedly team-like fashion.
This seems okay to me.
But regardless! So far we've discussed how a counterspell-focused arcanist fares against an all-I-do-is-cast wizard BBEG. What about other types of encounters?
** spoiler omitted **What you described was not the experience we witnessed. Our GM was well prepared too, as he ran this module for our PFS group some months ago.
** spoiler omitted **...
So, is the problem the immediate action counterspelling, the two staves of the master or the bad tactics by Karzoug? (Hint: it's not the first)
.
But regardless! So far we've discussed how a counterspell-focused arcanist fares against an all-I-do-is-cast wizard BBEG. What about other types of encounters?
Arcanist has a hard time against multiple spellcasters.
Worse time against divine casters.
|
** spoiler omitted **What you described was not the experience we witnessed. Our GM was well prepared too, as he ran this module for our PFS group some months ago.
** spoiler omitted **...
So, is the problem the immediate action counterspelling, the two staves of the master or the bad tactics by Karzoug? (Hint: it's not the first)
** spoiler omitted **
The first two, in fact. Staff of the master is also a crazy item.
Out of curiosity, what tactics might you have tried instead? Karzoug was pretty well on the ropes out of the gate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Karzoug should be aware of the PCs tactics. If he faces a known and effective counterspeller (or a dedicated counterspeller) he should use tactics other than the default (I won't go over it now because I have to study for an Anatomy test).
EDIT:
It's also pretty cool when you get to use swift actions right after using immediate actions. In fact, it's so cool it's completely illegal.
I hadn't noticed. So, a broken item, illegal actions and poor tactics. I don't think this is a good indicator of what the exploit is like.
then a cleric who intends to channel must be horribly MAD as well, yeah there's no way that could work.Just popping in here to second the Charisma focus that's been mentioned in previous posts. Yes, please, tie more of their DCs into Charisma. Most classes rely on two stats or so, and this would add both a little balance and flavor out of the gate.
In fact, if I had only one vote for a feature, it would pretty much be that.
You are literally the Devil. They will need con and dex to survive too, and they are balanced without having a multiple ability dependence problem.
At no point in time (save for the mythical level 20) can they ready more than two of their highest level spells, people. 2!
For reference: that is the number that comes after 1 (the smallest positive integer).
They are weak and all this MAD will kill them forever.
This guy knows. Most viable Cleric builds just don't care about charisma because that is such a small part of their efficacy, but the arcanist's exploits are a MAJOR power source. Moreover, Clerics get medium armor and thus can largely ignore the need for dexterity. The arcanist has no such luxury.
Saying that makes me want an exploit that lets arcanists cast in armor (but I understand why other people would not like that).
|
|
It's also pretty cool when you get to use swift actions right after using immediate actions. In fact, it's so cool it's completely illegal.
Good catch Shisumo. I'm amazed none of us were aware of this fact. Out of curiosity I glanced back at 3.5 material too and seems it functioned that way in that edition as well. Color me embarrassed for missing that for 10 years.
As andreww pointed out though, the wish use was perfectly legitimate (if total wish cheese).
In light of the swift/immediate action revelation, I am less concerned about the counterspell exploit. I still think it's incredibly strong and difficult to balance in a caster vs. caster sense, but if you were to limit it to a few times per day (perhaps on a scale akin to the counterspell school) and forbid it functioning with Parry Spell, I would withdraw my complaint.
It's also pretty cool when you get to use swift actions right after using immediate actions. In fact, it's so cool it's completely illegal.
I especially enjoyed the part of his theory crafted encounter where there is no mention of spell resistance and every one of his spells goes off. And his Mage's Disjunction didn't destroy any artifacts and make him lose all spellcasting abilities.
OK, lets try and divert people from arguing about Immediate Action counterspells and instead talk about Samsarans Mystic Past Life ability. This allows you to add 1+Int modifier spells to your spells known. As we know from the Arcanist spells feature this actually increases the number of spells you can prepare. So, some initial questions:
1. Do you have to actually select the spells and then stick with them. The text in the class spells entry is not clear if these simply become extra preparation slots or they would be fixed. I really hope it is the latter for any sense of sanity to remain.
2. You have to pick spells of the same type which means plundering the Bard, Summoner and Witch lost. Again for the sake of sanity lets assume that you cannot cheat out early access spells (e.g. the Summoners 4th level Teleport spell).
3. Assume you are in a PFS game or other campaign which will not last much past level 12. Which 6 spells will you choose?
For me I would be looking at:
...Bard Spells
Acute Senses (Bard 2, enormous Perception bonuses)
Ancestral Communion (Bard 2, crush those Knowledge checks)
Delay Poison (Bard 2, immunity is nice, your Fortitude is weak)
Honeyed Tongue (Bard 2, you dumped Cha but still manage Diplomacy checks)
Glibness (Bard 3, crush Bluff checks, did I mention dumping Cha?)
Good Hope (Bard 3, nice group buff)
Freedom of Movement (Bard 4, grapples suck and Dimensional Slide doesn't help)
Bard's Escape (Bard 5, nice evacuation or tactical spell, group can be spread out)
Brilliant Inspiration (Bard 6, strong buff, give to your favourite machine gun archer)
Find the Path (Bard 6, potent Divination)Witch Spells:
Find Traps (Witch 2, not sure why but hey you never know)
Glyph of Warding (Witch 3, you want something to protect your spellbook which isn't Explosive Runes!)
Speak with Dead (Witch 3, really handy Divination)
Divination (Witch 4, cleric extra planar divinations are really just more reliable than arcane
I am really petitioning for more power for the arcanist, but even I am thinking that this exact wording might have to go. Really, I think giving the arcanist extra slots should maybe require its own feat(s).
Orrrrrr Feats and abilities that grant the arcanist extra spells essentially gives the arcanist spells known as a sorcerer has. Like: you are just treated as having readied haste every day in addition to the flexible spells you have receive from being an arcanist of your level.
OK, lets try and divert people from arguing about Immediate Action counterspells and instead talk about Samsarans Mystic Past Life ability. This allows you to add 1+Int modifier spells to your spells known. As we know from the Arcanist spells feature this actually increases the number of spells you can prepare. So, some initial questions:
1. Do you have to actually select the spells and then stick with them. The text in the class spells entry is not clear if these simply become extra preparation slots or they would be fixed. I really hope it is the latter for any sense of sanity to remain.
2. You have to pick spells of the same type which means plundering the Bard, Summoner and Witch lost. Again for the sake of sanity lets assume that you cannot cheat out early access spells (e.g. the Summoners 4th level Teleport spell).
3. Assume you are in a PFS game or other campaign which will not last much past level 12. Which 6 spells will you choose?
For me I would be looking at:
Bard Spells
Acute Senses (Bard 2, enormous Perception bonuses)
Ancestral Communion (Bard 2, crush those Knowledge checks)
Delay Poison (Bard 2, immunity is nice, your Fortitude is weak)
Honeyed Tongue (Bard 2, you dumped Cha but still manage Diplomacy checks)
Glibness (Bard 3, crush Bluff checks, did I mention dumping Cha?)
Good Hope (Bard 3, nice group buff)
Freedom of Movement (Bard 4, grapples suck and Dimensional Slide doesn't help)
Bard's Escape (Bard 5, nice evacuation or tactical spell, group can be spread out)
Brilliant Inspiration (Bard 6, strong buff, give to your favourite machine gun archer)
Find the Path (Bard 6, potent Divination)...Witch Spells:
Find Traps (Witch 2, not sure why but hey you never know)
Glyph of Warding (Witch 3, you want something to protect your spellbook which isn't Explosive Runes!)
Speak with Dead (Witch 3, really handy Divination)
Divination (Witch 4, cleric extra planar divinations are really just more reliable than arcane
Past life doesn't work that wat, it just puts spells on the list.
It does for the Arcanist, read their spells entry.
No. A sorcerer with the ability would add entangle to their sorc/wiz list and THEN they could learn it as a spell known as normal. The same would apply to an arcanist.
|
|
I especially enjoyed the part of his theory crafted encounter where there is no mention of spell resistance and every one of his spells goes off. And his Mage's Disjunction didn't destroy any artifacts and make him lose all spellcasting abilities.
The Arcanist's spell penetration was +25, so sufficient enough to waive need to roll against those particular adversaries since a 1 is only auto fail for attacks and saves. I believe Karzoug had the highest SR at 24 if memory serves?
As for the "theory crafted" encounter, percentiles were rolled for the artifacts. I can't recall exactly how many rolls were made, but I want to say it was two or three at 19% chance, and none of them exploded. The Arcanist's Will save was +23, so the chances of having lost spellcasting had he disjoined one would have been minimal.
|
|
Indeed. I was only responding to the specific points Robert made.
Our Arcanist was intent on toying with Karzoug. Had we known of the immediate action issue, I am sure he wouldn't have tried to play around with him. However you choose to look at what transpired (whether focusing on the action economy error, or otherwise) it should still be rather apparent the potential for Arcanist hard counterspell shutdown. Whether that is a matter for concern or not is up to personal interpretation.
I suppose had it been me, I wouldn't have worried about his flunkies and just slapped him with a persistent disjunction to debuff his spells and hopefully wreck his gear, then let Parry Spell do the work from there while the party cleaned up.
Indeed. I was only responding to the specific points Robert made.
Our Arcanist was intent on toying with Karzoug. Had we known of the immediate action issue, I am sure he wouldn't have tried to play around with him. However you choose to look at what transpired (whether focusing on the action economy error, or otherwise) it should still be rather apparent the potential for Arcanist hard counterspell shutdown. Whether that is a matter for concern or not is up to personal interpretation.
I suppose had it been me, I wouldn't have worried about his flunkies and just slapped him with a persistent disjunction to debuff his spells and hopefully wreck his gear, then let Parry Spell do the work from there while the party cleaned up.
Doesn't Karzoug have a quicken rod? Doesn't that mean he has two spells a round, of which the Arcanist can only block 1?
|
Doesn't Karzoug have a quicken rod? Doesn't that mean he has two spells a round, of which the Arcanist can only block 1?Indeed. I was only responding to the specific points Robert made.
Our Arcanist was intent on toying with Karzoug. Had we known of the immediate action issue, I am sure he wouldn't have tried to play around with him. However you choose to look at what transpired (whether focusing on the action economy error, or otherwise) it should still be rather apparent the potential for Arcanist hard counterspell shutdown. Whether that is a matter for concern or not is up to personal interpretation.
I suppose had it been me, I wouldn't have worried about his flunkies and just slapped him with a persistent disjunction to debuff his spells and hopefully wreck his gear, then let Parry Spell do the work from there while the party cleaned up.
The playtested arcanist was using a readied an action to counterspell (using greater dispel magic) and also using the counterspell exploit. So the arcanist had two counter actions available to offset Karzoug's two casting actions.
Doesn't Karzoug have a quicken rod? Doesn't that mean he has two spells a round, of which the Arcanist can only block 1?Indeed. I was only responding to the specific points Robert made.
Our Arcanist was intent on toying with Karzoug. Had we known of the immediate action issue, I am sure he wouldn't have tried to play around with him. However you choose to look at what transpired (whether focusing on the action economy error, or otherwise) it should still be rather apparent the potential for Arcanist hard counterspell shutdown. Whether that is a matter for concern or not is up to personal interpretation.
I suppose had it been me, I wouldn't have worried about his flunkies and just slapped him with a persistent disjunction to debuff his spells and hopefully wreck his gear, then let Parry Spell do the work from there while the party cleaned up.
Readied Action Greater Dispel to counter spell plus an Immediate action Counter Spell Exploit means an Arcanist can counter 2 spells a round. With Spell Parry, countered spells are inflicted on the original caster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where does the Witch fit? I'm thinking something like "the really smart homeschooled person who might not have gotten the full breadth of education like the others but who has picked up a few things that aren't even on their radar."<cue Van Halen's 'Hot For Teacher'>
"I loved my schooldays. My teacher was a FOX!"
{slaps "Hello, My Name is Antigone" sticker on blouse} Oh, Oedipus! {cue sitcom canned laughter}
{shoots spitball at Polynices}
|
|
Readied Action Greater Dispel to counter spell plus an Immediate action Counter Spell Exploit means an Arcanist can counter 2 spells a round. With Spell Parry, countered spells are inflicted on the original caster.Doesn't Karzoug have a quicken rod? Doesn't that mean he has two spells a round, of which the Arcanist can only block 1?Indeed. I was only responding to the specific points Robert made.
Our Arcanist was intent on toying with Karzoug. Had we known of the immediate action issue, I am sure he wouldn't have tried to play around with him. However you choose to look at what transpired (whether focusing on the action economy error, or otherwise) it should still be rather apparent the potential for Arcanist hard counterspell shutdown. Whether that is a matter for concern or not is up to personal interpretation.
I suppose had it been me, I wouldn't have worried about his flunkies and just slapped him with a persistent disjunction to debuff his spells and hopefully wreck his gear, then let Parry Spell do the work from there while the party cleaned up.
Which is not to say there weren't other issues with the playtest. In addition to the immediate/swift action and immunity to feeblemind issues noted before, there's the very real problem of artifact-level ioun stones being suppressed by a mage's disjunction - and considering the things those ioun stones affected, it's another pretty serious flaw with the scenario as presented.
That said, fundamentally it still demonstrates that a hard-core, specc'd-for-the-purpose, capable-of-casting-equal-level-spells counterspeller can seriously mess up an enemy caster. At best, it seems likely that such an arcanist could completely neutralize a similarly-leveled caster with relative impunity, allowing the rest of the party to tear them to shreds. How much of an issue the design team thinks this is we will know when the book comes out, I suppose.
|
|
there's the very real problem of artifact-level ioun stones being suppressed by a mage's disjunction - and considering the things those ioun stones affected, it's another pretty serious flaw with the scenario as presented.
Seeker of Secrets clarifies that such ioun stones are, in fact, not artifacts. They bear a caster level of 12th just like all the others, requirements to create them, as well as market price (24k each for the staking stat stones for example). Of course if one was not familiar with that book, then they'd never know that, so it's a valid concern to raise.
Indeed. I was only responding to the specific points Robert made.
Our Arcanist was intent on toying with Karzoug. Had we known of the immediate action issue, I am sure he wouldn't have tried to play around with him. However you choose to look at what transpired (whether focusing on the action economy error, or otherwise) it should still be rather apparent the potential for Arcanist hard counterspell shutdown. Whether that is a matter for concern or not is up to personal interpretation.
I suppose had it been me, I wouldn't have worried about his flunkies and just slapped him with a persistent disjunction to debuff his spells and hopefully wreck his gear, then let Parry Spell do the work from there while the party cleaned up.
This is looking like a highly optimized caster defeated a set in stone caster that is clearly unoptimized. Not that surprising. The Runelords all have very useless feats.
As Karzoug observes the entire adventure, surely he could see what a nuisance and arrogant caster the Arcanist was. Thus he could have hid and readied an action as soon as the Arcanist steps into the Eye of Avarice with a Heightened Baleful Polymorph. Surprised and flatfooted can't counterspell save or lose. Or a readied action Time Stop.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So your caster was completely taken out of the fight by taking the other caster out of the fight... whats the problem?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Am I the only one okay ith this idea of an Arcanist dominating the caster vs. caster arrangement. As it stands it feels more like a Mutually Assured Destruction strategy between casters. You can't counter one another effectively so you hurl spells at one another until something sticks....
I'm also totally fine with Arcanists canceling spellcasters--in fact, that's the aspect of them I like best and the main reason I'd want to play one.
Maybe Spell Parry shouldn't work with the exploit. Maybe, more likely, people who want climatic final showdowns should probably play lower level games. ;)
I don't know, coming from someone who generally hates spellcasters, the Arcanist has me genuinely excited and I'd consider that a win--I was pretty down on the ACG until this revision. Nothing else grabs me and I'm actively frustrated with the state of a few classes (*cough* Hunter Warpriest *cough*), so this is a nice turn of events.
|
2). Immediate action counterspells, effectively at will. I probably sound like a broken record, but that is incredibly strong. Arcanists will effectively dominate any caster vs. caster encounter if this makes it to play. Sometime later when I have time, I will tell the story of how our 18th level playtest went with our Arcanist vs. Karzoug in Rise of the Runelords.I guess I'm missing something, because I don't understand how the Counterspell exploit is overpowered.
First, you have to successfully ID the spell. Yes, this is eventually guaranteed, but not until several levels in. At lower levels, it's hit-and-miss.
Once you ID it, you have to spend both a point AND a spell of sufficient level. Doesn't that make the lower spells per day a bit of an issue?
After you've paid your cost, you then have to make a dispel check, with a DC of 11+CL. Given that the enemy probably has a
comparablehigher CL to your own, you're looking at about a50/5040/60 if you're lucky shot of success.Sorry, but this doesn't look that strong to me. What am I missing?
Fixed that for you. All that the Arcanist does with his counterspelling abilities is take possibly the worst system in the game and the biggest waste of a turn available and turn it into something remotely feasible. This is probably the one thing I don't want them to change about the class, unless it's to improve the ability and make it more efficient and likely to succeed.
Characters will rarely fight casters who are the same level as them. IN most APs, modules, scenarios and even homebrews, the BBEG isn't going to be a necromancer who went to school with the party's evoker, he's going to be a spellcaster with years more experience and power (i.e. more experience and more levels). That's just a basic assumption of the CR system that encounters are built around. Most casters will be at least a level above the party, potentially several levels higher. Creating a class that had the potential to have a fighting chance at counter-spelling was one of the best things Paizo has done with this playtest/product.
2). Immediate action counterspells, effectively at will. I probably sound like a broken record, but that is incredibly strong. Arcanists will effectively dominate any caster vs. caster encounter if this makes it to play. Sometime later when I have time, I will tell the story of how our 18th level playtest went with our Arcanist vs. Karzoug in Rise of the Runelords.I guess I'm missing something, because I don't understand how the Counterspell exploit is overpowered.
First, you have to successfully ID the spell. Yes, this is eventually guaranteed, but not until several levels in. At lower levels, it's hit-and-miss.
Once you ID it, you have to spend both a point AND a spell of sufficient level. Doesn't that make the lower spells per day a bit of an issue?
After you've paid your cost, you then have to make a dispel check, with a DC of 11+CL. Given that the enemy probably has a
comparablehigher CL to your own, you're looking at about a50/5040/60 if you're lucky shot of success.Sorry, but this doesn't look that strong to me. What am I missing?
Fixed that for you. All that the Arcanist does with his counterspelling abilities is take possibly the worst system in the game and the biggest waste of a turn available and turn it into something remotely feasible. This is probably the one thing I don't want them to change about the class, unless it's to improve the ability and make it more efficient and likely to succeed.
Characters will rarely fight casters who are the same level as them. IN most APs, modules, scenarios and even homebrews, the BBEG isn't going to be a necromancer who went to school with the party's evoker, he's going to be a spellcaster with years more experience and power (i.e. more experience and more levels). That's just a basic assumption of the CR system that encounters are built around. Most casters will be at least a level above the party, potentially several levels higher. Creating a...
I specifically called it out on the survey as the one thing that doesn't need to change. Anyone who thinks counter spelling as an immediate is too good, I'd like to hear their opinions on how good it should be. Because, as a readied action, it's useless.
An ability based on that kind of extreme situation is not good for a major level decision.
And let's be honest, this ability is like starving out in the desert, then paying all your money for +2 bonus to find water. It delivers very, very little for the high cost.
I agree, I just enjoy being an insufferable pedant. IMO, I'd scale the costs and returns appropriately so that 1 reservoir point consistently equals 25 gp, regardless of what item you're consuming. Much more fair.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scroll of a 2nd level spell - 150g
Runestone of Power(1st) - 2000g
Doesn't seem like that big of a problem to me. You can eat 13 scrolls before you would spend the amount of money that a runestone costs. (and you can do it multiple times a day if you need to)
Scroll of a 4th level spell - 700g
Runestone of Power(2nd) - 8000g
Still doesn't seem like that big of a deal. You can eat 11 scrolls before you would spend the amount of money that a runestone costs. (you can still do it multiple times a day when you need to)
Think of it like buying adamantine arrows vs. an adamantine melee weapon. Sure you get infinite uses out of the melee weapon, but you probably won't spend as much on ammunition as the melee weapon would cost in the long run.
This idea you have about Arcanists demanding all the loot is a problem with the player, not with the class. Every group I have played with has had a fair system for distributing loot, usually based on the gold worth of the gear they currently have been given.
And who says you need that extra spell slot/arcane reservoir point every single day? Using consumables is more like pay as you go, whereas the runestone is always there when you need it. Where do you get the idea that having one item that refreshes a spell slot is more flexible than 13 scrolls? That's potentially 13 different spells you have access to. How is one item more flexible than that? You aren't buying the scrolls for the sole purpose of eating them, you just have the extra option if you need to use them for arcane reservoir.
Scroll of a 2nd level spell - 150g
Runestone of Power(1st) - 2000gDoesn't seem like that big of a problem to me. You can eat 13 scrolls before you would spend the amount of money that a runestone costs. (and you can do it multiple times a day if you need to)
Scroll of a 4th level spell - 700g
Runestone of Power(2nd) - 8000gStill doesn't seem like that big of a deal. You can eat 11 scrolls before you would spend the amount of money that a runestone costs. (you can still do it multiple times a day when you need to)
Think of it like buying adamantine arrows vs. an adamantine melee weapon. Sure you get infinite uses out of the melee weapon, but you probably won't spend as much on ammunition as the melee weapon would cost in the long run.
No, no I don't think that tells half the story.
Bear in mind that as a spellbook using class Arcanists are going to want to do things like use scrolls both as a means to increase their spellbook adn as a means to expand their toolbox of spells per day (infact the arcanist I'm building right now took scribe scroll for this very reason).
And there's also the issue of what you do with these items once you have them. You [i]could[/i[ consume them. But for what? To make a spell more potent? To counterspell a spell later? This leaves you with an odd question, should I burn this useful scroll in order to fuel an ability for later knowing that it will be all but wasted the next day? And the spell you burn now is gone forever likely when you need it too. The runestone option isn't just cheaper in the long run but allows you to be more prepared as well.
Honestly, outside of PFS Scribe Scroll seems like a mandatory feat if you want to use consume magical items with any regularity alongside Hedge Magician and any other ability that allows you to lower the cost. In this way you can more frugally convert scrolls into points and possibly points into spells.
On the subject of destroying magical items that the party has...
My GM played D&D from almost the very beginning, and he often tells me stories of games from older editions. One thing he brings up from time to time was Barbarians and magic items.
He told me Barbarians used to destroy magic items for experience points. That they could often cause party conflicts because the Barbarian would need to destroy stuff for that XP. Things like ripping spell books, snapping staffs, smashing potions and burning bundles of wands.
If destroying magical items for personal benefit is such a good idea, why doesn't the Barbarian still have this ability? 0.o
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Revised Arcanist feels is just like a D&D 4e class.
I'm getting a feeling of deja vu, reading the Exploits. They just feel so much like 4e's powers/spells.
As someone who was introduced to table-top RPG by playing D&D 4ed, I find the Arcanist reminding me of 4e's wizards and sorcerers.
Especially the Arcanist Exploits.
The Arcanist Exploits just feel so familiar, in a "Look! 4e powers are made only for combat" kinda way.
I guess if I ever have to convince any of the 4e players, who played casters in 4e, to come play table top again, I will suggest the Arcanist. It would really help ease them into Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Arcanist needs more utility exploits.
On the subject of destroying magical items that the party has...
My GM played D&D from almost the very beginning, and he often tells me stories of games from older editions. One thing he brings up from time to time was Barbarians and magic items.
He told me Barbarians used to destroy magic items for experience points. That they could often cause party conflicts because the Barbarian would need to destroy stuff for that XP. Things like ripping spell books, snapping staffs, smashing potions and burning bundles of wands.
If destroying magical items for personal benefit is such a good idea, why doesn't the Barbarian still have this ability? 0.o
Because at some point someone decided you should get all your experience from killing stuff instead of finding stuff. This was the same edition where a thief would grab all the money because 1 coin=3 XP (as opposed to 1 for anyone else).
What we're talking about here is scrolls wands and potions. These are all consumable items, which you are already destroying to get some benefit. It's just that now you have an alternate option on what that benefit is.
|
|
I'd like it better if instead of obliterating an item, the Arcanist just "drained it"
Syphon charges off something with charges, or suppress a magic item for X amount of time.
"Oh, we don't need this +2 Dwarven Urgosh! Cause those things are horribad right!? I'll just syphon off its enchantment and turn it into points in my pool and it becomes a Masterwork Dwarven why did they make this? till I get back to town and replace what I took. That ok with you guys?"
Leave the item to be sold, once the Arcanist gets back to town and uses some of his own daily power to replace what he took.
This is not so easy an idea to balance. When you try to pin down the details on it, it becomes more problematic. Part of it is that AR points go up linearly with level. Magic item cost goes up geometrically. So with the current system, getting points at higher levels will be easy. Getting points at low levels will be hard.
It's also hard to come up with something that takes into account the variable worth it magic effects. My attempt was to have draining provide temporary points that could only be used on effects of the same or lower spell level as the item could produce.
That last part is important. Whether items are destroyed, or suppressed, there needs to be a threshold of item price to qualify for Arcanist exploits of increasing value, because the worth of a pool point increases, the higher level spell that can be affected. That's why greater metamagic rods cost more than lesser metamagic rods.
It would be trivially easy for any group to keep a bag of low-level items that they had no use for, to be used as power batteries by the arcanist. The result would be that the Arcanist may as well be assumed to start every day with a pool full to bursting, and eliminate the whole subsystem.Consume Item only has a meaningful cost, if the item being consumed was something the party intended to use.
Want to spend your resulting consumed pool point to alter a high-level spell? You have to drain (or suppress) an item that grants the effects of high-level spells.
|
|
2). Immediate action counterspells, effectively at will. I probably sound like a broken record, but that is incredibly strong. Arcanists will effectively dominate any caster vs. caster encounter if this makes it to play. Sometime later when I have time, I will tell the story of how our 18th level playtest went with our Arcanist vs. Karzoug in Rise of the Runelords.
Have been saying this like a broken record also. Even at 10th level this class will effectively shut another caster down. And to boot, the Arcanist can do this, no V/S/M.
It's long been known that encounters with lone BBEGs (especially caster BBEGs) vs a whole party are horribly one-sided, and over quickly, even when the BBEG is getting the chance to act.
When one member of the party can shut down the first spell they cast, without sacrificing their own offence or buffing their allies, that exacerbates their short lifespan.Of course, there should already be a veto on solo BBEG encounters, yet they keep appearing in printed adventures.
If there happens to be a story reason why the BBEG gets caught alone, then at least put a sidebar in the adventure that the encounter should be worth a max of 25% normal xp, or even 0xp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you aren't planning on having AR points available to be used, then frankly you are playing the Arcanist wrong.
Whew! It was feeling mighty strange having a thread go so long without someone saying "you're doing it wrong." I'm glad normalcy has been restored.